Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Customs

Valuation – When deemed value is higher than transaction value, deemed value would get priority – Supreme Court

THE deemed value of the goods as shown by the Department would definitely prevail over the transactional value shown by the appellant in the present case. The crucial fact is the fact that similar goods imported by the appellant itself for identical specifications were higher than those declared by the appellant. The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 would prevail over the transactional value when Rule 4 is not reflecting the prices on which such or like goods are sold or offered for sale.

Income Tax

Sec 276CC - Do issue of notice u/s 148 and thereon filing of return exonerate assessee of liability to prosecution for not filing return within due date as per Sec 139(1) - NO, says Madras High Court

THE issue before the Bench is - Whether the issue of notice u/s 148 and thereon filing of returns in response thereto exonerate the assessee of liability to prosecution u/s 276CC for not filing the returns within the statutory due date as per Section 139(1) of the Act. NO is the answer of the Bench.

Service Tax

GTA - Who should pay tax - Consignor or Consignee? Depends on who engaged transporter and who is liable to pay freight - CESTAT

FOR determining as to which person is liable to pay service tax on GTA services in accordance with the provisions of Notification No.35/04-ST issued under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2 (1) (d) (v), the question which has to be answered is as to who had engaged the transporter and who was liable to pay freight to the transporter.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements